Difference between revisions of "Milestone-Proposal talk:Fermilab Tevatron"

(Committee response -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC))
(Committee response -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC))
Line 46: Line 46:
  
 
As I read the first sentence of the citation, a question comes to mind - what year did the Tevatron achieve energy greater than 1 TeV (given acceleration and collision are listed with years in parentheses)?  I assume acceleration in 1983 was not at 1 TeV.  Also, in the latter part of the first sentence, would it be more effective to reword "making it the most powerful collider in the world until 2009" to "making it the world's most powerful energy particle collider until 2009"?  In terms of the second sentence in the citation, I don't understand how the Tevatron's magnets are applicable to MRI.  Is there a direct connection between the two?
 
As I read the first sentence of the citation, a question comes to mind - what year did the Tevatron achieve energy greater than 1 TeV (given acceleration and collision are listed with years in parentheses)?  I assume acceleration in 1983 was not at 1 TeV.  Also, in the latter part of the first sentence, would it be more effective to reword "making it the most powerful collider in the world until 2009" to "making it the world's most powerful energy particle collider until 2009"?  In terms of the second sentence in the citation, I don't understand how the Tevatron's magnets are applicable to MRI.  Is there a direct connection between the two?
 +
 +
===Re: Committee response -- [[User:Talkingkarthik|Talkingkarthik]] ([[User talk:Talkingkarthik|talk]]) 14:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)===
 +
 +
: I approve this citation

Revision as of 14:09, 5 March 2017

remark by the advocate -- Savini (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As the advocate of the proposed milestone, I have a couple of remarks. I believe that nobody can deny the importance of the FermiLab synchrotron. It was a real milestone in the history of nuclear physics and relevant technology. The proposed citation correctly highlights that it was the first accelerator/collider to use superconducting magnets. Just because of this I wonder whether a more appropriate title might be "Superconducting magnets for the Fermilab accelerator/collider, 1983" . The second part of the citation, by the way, accordingly points out the following applications of superconducting technology. In addition, I have a few other requests of corrections: i) in the title, instead of "1983" to read " 1983-1985" ii) to modify the central part of the first sentence from " the Tevatron achieved over 1 TeV in proton-antiproton collisions" to " the Tevatron achieved energy in excess of 1 Tera electronVolt (TeV) in proton-antiproton collisions". This clarifies the term TeV for the general public. iii) in the last line I prefer the term "technology" instead of "infrastructure".

Re: remark by the advocate -- Ldcooley (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. The citation recommendations will be evaluated by the Council on Superconductivity and Fermilab by 6 jan 2017.

Re: remark by the advocate -- Ldcooley (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

We accept most of the recommendations by the advocate, which results in the text below. Regarding "infrastructure" vs "technology", we think the manufacturers developed not only machinery, equipment, and processes, but also new management, sourcing, and organizational structures related to superconductor manufacturing. Therefore, we would like to keep the word "infrastructure".

Proposed revised text: SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETS FOR THE FERMILAB TEVATRON ACCELERATOR / COLLIDER, 1983–1985 As the first synchrotron to use superconducting magnets to accelerate (1983) and collide (1985) particle beams, the Tevatron achieved energy above 1 Tera electron-Volt (TeV) in proton-antiproton collisions, making it the most powerful collider in the world until 2009. Construction of over 1,000 magnets established superconducting wire manufacturing infrastructure that made applications such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) viable.

(70 words including title)

Re: remark by the advocate -- Savini (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I am happy that the proposers agree with most of my remarks. As to the last one, that is the use of "infrastructure" instead of "technology" I have no difficulty to keep the term "infrastructure".

Replace this text with your reply

Committee response -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I approve of this citation.

Re: Committee response -- Bethrobertson (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I also approve of this citation.

Re: Re: Committee response -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I approve of the milestone. Dave Bart

Re: Committee response -- M.j.bastiaans (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I also approve of this citation.

Re: Committee response -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

As I read the first sentence of the citation, a question comes to mind - what year did the Tevatron achieve energy greater than 1 TeV (given acceleration and collision are listed with years in parentheses)? I assume acceleration in 1983 was not at 1 TeV. Also, in the latter part of the first sentence, would it be more effective to reword "making it the most powerful collider in the world until 2009" to "making it the world's most powerful energy particle collider until 2009"? In terms of the second sentence in the citation, I don't understand how the Tevatron's magnets are applicable to MRI. Is there a direct connection between the two?

Re: Committee response -- Talkingkarthik (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I approve this citation